France is so far left that not even the US will buy their failing industry.

Maurice Taylor

"I have visited that factory a couple of times. The French workforce gets paid high wages but only works three hours. They get one hour for breaks and lunch, talk for three and work for three. I told this to the French union workers to their faces. They told me that's the French way! How stupid do you think we are?"

This is an image problem the French face globally, and Comrade Hollande can only make it worse.

Mr. Taylor's comments are interesting to say the least. Whilst I believe they do not apply to the French laborer as a whole there is no denying that the CGT is the thorn in the side of French industrial production. Wherever they are there are are industrial problems. Add to that the RTT (often 12 days) time, vacation time, 5 weeks and national holidays that makes over a whopping 8 + weeks of paid vacation for the French in general or in other words, 10 months of work payed 12 months and often 13. This is what the successive French governments have wanted especially the socialist governments. It translates into inadaptability in times of economic difficulty. This certainly does make for stereotypes but with a certain veracity. France is aware of this but is unable to react by simple inability to make the hard decisions necessary to make the economy competitive. It's certainly not the French model that will govern the world in the future and rightly so.

Why does so much that this newspaper has to say about Hollande sound so much like what one might say about the current US president -- except that part about "veering towards the center"? The American president has about as much familiarity with and fondness for (European) liberalism as Hollande; for both "debt" and "deficit" seem to have little relevance; both tiptoe softly around their labor unions; both seem to find solutions to all fiscal problems in tax hikes; both are hooked on social program spending. Yet while TE never has had kind words for Hollande, its leaders and Lexington have only sweet things to say about our president, whom they actually endorsed (!). France to the USA: As you are I once was, as I am so will you be....

France in its current form is not a going concern, period. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the deep structural reforms needed are possible in a relatively wealthy country where cultural exceptionalism is entrenched. It will take creative destruction to force change.

France is heading towards a major crisis. Between the extreme right and the extreme left you have 30-35% of total votes, and this in a country where state expenses are over 50% GDP (and increasing), which in practical terms means that even with an overgenerous state that buys popular support by overspending you have 1/3 of the population that is positively pissed off.
With debt over 90% GDP and taxes sky-high there is no way that this system may continue. In fact France hasn´t still collapsed because the current interest on their bonds are quite low (thanks to the Euro and Germany)... In let´s say 5-8 years the french will be forced to reduce their social spending, which will surely result politically in 40-45% votes for extreme left&right. At this point the country will become politically very unstable and french politicians will find an useful scapegoat on Europe...
If you have read french history the next chapter is quite predictable. France will not reform but you will get a revolution and the french will do in 3 years what they haven´t done in the last 30. The only problem is that the last revolution was headed in 1958 by de Gaulle who created the V Republique, got out of the algerian swamp and modernized the economy but there is no de Gaulle this time... In a best case scenario the next revolution will create a new France (as it happened in 1789, 1871 or 1958). In a worst case it will mean the end of the European Union.

France desperately needs its "1979 Moment" a la Britain, when economic reality finally became so dire as to force a majority of people to realize tired old socialist ideas were not merely irrelevant but actively harmful to everyone's well-being. Perhaps France will reach this point sometime around 2020 but until then nothing is going to change and the decline will continue inexorably - just think Britain in 1975.

BANKER SPEAK: "The G-20 also put off plans for new debt-cutting goals in a move to stoke economic growth." UNDERSTANDABLE SPEAK: Kicking the can down the road and dealing with it at a much later time. Or, extend the time when issue will be dealt with and pretend that it is manageable when in reality, it is NOT! It is the same old, same old. TODAY, WE WILL MAKE PLANS TO BORROW FROM TOMORROW TO PAY YESTERDAY'S BILLS. The great clubs have little except the drinks on the best of the table and chi chats on the Samsun or Nokia ‘ my son just bought one” That I thank you Firozali A.Mulla DBA

While language is a significant factor, there are other deep, significant reasons why the EU will get no closer politically. Cultural, religious, and historic rivalries play a huge role. Look at the break-up of Yugoslavia. The people had been forced into a single country for decades, and spoke a common language. When they had an ounce of freedom they went for each others throats. I don't think the Italians would ever tolerate a leader that was German, or the Germans a Frenchman. I thank you Firozali A.Mulla DBA

Sorry to admit it,but France is more and more resembling economically to Italy,rather than the light years far Germany.The economy is shrinking here,too,while car sales are down two digit compared with the previous years,and the banlieues are continuously approaching a new explosion.And Hollande finds no new solutions:a costly war and more taxes,the answer to this mess.Very sad and depressing

So Hilde
Would you like Bernasconi as your next President? You are almost there any way
BTW on your earlier remark about no subsidies for the car industry
::
'The French government is also planning to provide a €600 million loan package for small and medium-size companies in the automotive industry. The subsidies come after France's largest automotive manufacturer, PSA Peugeot Citroen SA, previously announced it would shut down a large assembly plant north of Paris and lay off 8% of its domestic workforce.'

It seems that Citroen is slowly going broke - But not if they get subsidized.
Then the fat cats will sit around for their paycheck from 'Hollande'
And even they will not be able to compete against Volks Wagen or maybe Mercedes.

You are 20 years behind the English - and no banking industry to boot.
What are you going to do??

You don't even have enough money to subsidise the steel industry, and stop them closing down a few mills.

oh don't talk of the Brit cars industry, it's all owned by german and french companies

We have neough money to buy Arcelor Mittal, but the EU laws forbid it, I wonder why they support a globalist shareholder that fires out people to make more money at the stockhouse, and this, when the enterprise makes benefits !

watch out for UK, your policy will make you going to the Salvation army soup !

The good old canard that keeps on giving.
.
France is a net contributor to the EU budget, *including CAP transfers*.
.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8036097.stm#start
.
I will hammer at France's misguided ways till the cows come home (pun intended), but the idea that France is living off EU generosity has to be eradicated once and for all. It is just plain ridiculously wrong, especially when clear and abundant information on the topic is readily available.
.
For what it is worth, the EU's budget, *including the CAP* is minuscule compared to national budgets. So grandstanding about the alleged outrageousness of the CAP, and the fact that it accounts for 40% of the Union's spending, is nothing more than screaming bloody murder about 0.4% of the EU's GDP. The CAP is the *only* federal programme of any significance, so of course it gobbles up a big chunk of a tiny cake.
.
I would prefer a much larger EU budget, drafted by the Commission and voted/amended by the Parliament, based on EU-wide taxes, without petty national interests parasiting the process. Then we could develop all sorts of much better programmes than the CAP, focusing on education, R&D, infrastructure, regulatory harmonisation, defence, etc.
.
But short of that, actually, a long way short of that, the CAP is the only meaningful budget that exists at supranational level. To which France is a net contributor.

A good article, with some surprising inconsistencies thrown in for good measure. TE cannot say that the rich got "soaked" by the 75% tax at the beginning of the column, and then, a couple of paragraphs down, mention that this (crazy) new tax was (thankfully) struck down by the constitutional court. Daily reading of French newspapers indicates that there is no appetite to bring this farcical bit of tax law back on the table, which I guess is a way of losing face by sweeping said face under the carpet. Or maybe the crushing weight of economic reality, which would be a silver lining.
----
I agree with the gist of the article, though. Hollande has so far been a perfect example of the political class that has led the country, with the people's blessing, for the past 40 years. Someone who will do just enough to avoid outright collapse, but nothing more, and certainly nothing to reverse course.
.
More importantly, the "just enough" will always be presented as an imposition from outside (people who have the temerity to not be French or not to see things the way we, the enlightened, do, in a sense), a grudging, temporary (remember the "parenthesis" on the road to socialism in 1983?) acceptance of arithmetics dictated by "globalisation" or "the Anglo-Saxons" or who-knows-what-else. Instead of having leaders who have the integrity and election-losing spine to embrace a new course, and to tell voters exactly that, before the elections, and while in power, we are stuck with Mitterrand's curse: he who clarifies an ambiguous position does so at his peril.
.
This capitulating, sneaking duplicity feeds political extremisms, and a general mistrust of our democracy. This is shameful, and a harbinger of bad things to come.
----
But the truth is that all our misery is entirely self-inflicted. *We* voted for those clowns, because *we* liked what they said, even if quite a few of us knew it was all BS. We are exactly where those who pay attention to reality said, 15 years ago, we would be by now. No surprise. French voters have systematically plumped for the bigger of two (or three) demagogues at each election. Picking Mitterrand and Chirac over Barre in 1988, Chirac and Jospin over Balladur in 1995, Chirac (see a theme here?) and Le Pen (ugh) over Bayrou and Madellin in 2002, Sarko et Ségo over Bayrou in 2007, and well, last year's debacle...
.
It probably all started with picking Mitterrand over Rocard for the PS's candidacy in 1981, and then giving the cynical master the keys to the Elysée. I was not even 12 months old then, so...
----
It is not the Chinese's, the Germans', the EU's, the UK's or anyone else's fault if we constantly and collectively stuff up. We did this to ourselves. The 35 hours, retirement at 60 (well, for the private sector, at least), mass extra-EU immigration, epochal failure of the eduction system, etc. We chose that. We wanted it. Now we have it. Long live democracy.

While I understand your point, the problem is not the politicians, in my opinion. In a democracy, ultimate responsibility for, and ownership of, public affairs is in the hands of *voters*. Us. If we wanted truth-telling politicians, or at least less nakedly lying ones, we would vote for them. My point is that we have knowingly backed the wrong horses for nigh on 40 years, and that therefore we should not be surprised that we do not fare well in the race.
.
Last week's issue of TE had a brilliant yet hardly groundbreaking briefing on Scandinavia and Finland. One of the key messages was "accountability". Voters hold their elected representatives accountable, election after election.
.
*We* have a foreign minister who was prime minister nearly 30 years ago, and involved in what arguably was the Vth Republic's biggest scandal (AIDS-infected blood tranfusions). I pick him at unfortunate random, since he his hardly an exception. Such a terrible record would terminate the career of just about any Scandinavian, Finnish or Rhineland politician. *We* just forget and repeat. Our parliament boasts the highest average age in the whole of Europe, because we have complacently allowed our political class to calcify and weld itself into place for 30 years.
.
I worry when I hear that a large majority of French people are basically awaiting a strong man to lead the country out of its misery. What a shameful abdication of our civic duties.

" worry when I hear that a large majority of French people are basically awaiting a strong man to lead the country out of its misery."
if you mean a second de Gaulle, and or a Mitterrand, probably, strong men don't mean fashists, but persons with a strong personality, especially when it comes to not let our sovereignity being snacked by Brussels and or Berlin
Fabius, like Kouchner are "grandes gueules", they aren't really fitting the Diplomacy deontology, one needs to be discret !
I suspect that Hollande preferred having him under control in the government as having him outside and demolishing his policy
Enough of the Scandinavian model, the german model, before it was the british model... see where it is now !
uh what about the french model? that allowed us to survive since more than a millenarium !

This is why Schroeder was voted out of office. He knew it but pushed the reforms through anyway. He was a patriot who put the nation's long-term interests above his own. His Agenda 2010 is one of the reasons why Germany is envied today.

Why are you so furious and jealous tonight, MC? Unfulfilled sex life?
.
BTW, Schroeder could pick and choose, he had more offers than he could handle upon retirement, and Nord Stream was already his political baby as chancellor. This is probably why he picked it after he had retired from politics. BTW, I think that Nord Stream is a great project which makes lots of sense. Whole Europe now profits from it.

Nord Stream that avoided Poland, for good reasons that Poland could block the russian supplies if Putin would try some harming policy, Nord Stream that is owned up to 40% by German shareholders, that also lobbied Brussels to get the necessary authorisations for directing its gas supplies in EU

Schöder isn't the Choir child that you want us to swallow, he is embedded into a big sheme

A naive choir boy couldn't become a successful political leader. That's neither an expected nor a desirable quality for a man of Schroeder's standing.

The pipeline is not against friendly Poland. Poland is rather benefiting, since the Nord Stream pipeline allows gas supply to bypass precarious transit states through an underwater route.
.
Running under the Baltic Sea, the pipeline specifically circumvents Ukraine and Belarus, two transit states for Europe-bound natural gas that were already in the past (and can be in future) problematic for a steady supply.
.
The project was considered before, but to a large degree the pipeline was finally constructed in response to the European energy crises of 2006, 2008 and 2009, when Russia and Ukraine had arguments over gas payments and supply to Europe was, as a result, interrupted.
.
The supply interruptions affected all downstream European customers, foremost Poland, Rumania and Bulgaria, who previously relied on Ukraine to transit Russian natural gas.
.
To ensure stable supplies, amid potential future disputes with Ukraine or Belarus, Russian and German companies financed and constructed Nord Stream, creating a direct export avenue into Europe. This is why I wrote earlier that "Nord Stream is a great project which makes lots of sense. Whole Europe now profits from it."

If Germany and Russia stand in close alliance it is nothing but a matter of natural affair as both countries have more in common as any other European nation.
In regard of their mentality, outlook on life as well as in regard of their culture Germany and Russia are quite like twins.
To all other European countries Germany stands in an utmost and extreme contrast by tradition and by history over centuries.
Germans since ever had the hardest life in Europe being rejected and mostly hated by the rest of Europe.
So it has been the basics of German politics since 1989 having a very special and close strategic alliance with Russia.
It was nobody else as Russia and Bush senior who were enforcing the re-unification of Germany against the most extreme resistance of all West European countries especially of France, the UK and Italy.
Nobody ever will forget in Germany the shabby attempt of Mr. Mitterand trying to stabilize the communist system in East Germany and the shabby attempts of the British government against the German re-unification.
So France can no longer count on Germany and German politics just was drawing the right conclusions in regard of France.
Poland is meanwhile much more a partner of Germany as France ever has been.
I think the so-called Franco-German friendship, which in reality never has been honest from the French side, now comes to its very end.
German politics is concentrating now on its real partners and France is getting more and more out of German political interest.
May be if Berlusconi will win this week-end the same will happen to Italy:)
France can do very well without Germany and vice versa.
Both countries therefore should go their own way and so finally the language barrier has been a bless for the Germans as we can see now:)

I don't want Schröder's "deep reforms" as you call them. The German economy may be doing better than most other European countries', but the poverty rate is higher than in France (even though Germany's jobless rate is much lower), the income gap is increasing rapidly, fewer and fewer people can affort health care. This is not the kind of society I want to live in. I'd rather follow the Nordic example than the German (counter-)example (low corporate rate, public and private sector working hand in hand, more transparency, flexicurity, relatively high taxation, generous and effective spending).
"Confronting vested interests"...why not ? The thing is, why does TE never - or rarely - talk about vested interests in the financial sector ? They are far more dangerous for the world economy than the vested interests you love to hate. Talk about "realism"...

Everybody in Germany can afford healthcare - state cover is universal. It's also worth noting that Germany has a much lower GINI coefficient than France - France is a far less egalitarian place than Germany.
.
I would also advocate a more Nordic or Dutch model more generally, but there are still many areas where France could learn from German experience (and vice versa, regarding promotion of gender equality and attaining higher birth rates).

Germany used to be a very egalitarian place, but things are going unfortunately in France's direction as far as equality is concerned.

I should have been more specific about health care. 6 years after the 2007 reform, about 2% of Germans are still uninsured (which is low - especially by US standards - but unthinkable in Germany say 15 years ago). A growing number of Germans who work can't afford a private insurance, putting off the treatment of health problems that will be much harder to tackle several years later.

High birth rates may be good for the economy, I'm not sure they are good for the planet. Governments - especially in the industrialized world - should encourage individuals to have one (two maximum) kid in their life. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating a Chinese-like one-child policy here. It's difficult to find a balanced approach and to make people understand what is at stake without "playing" with their guilt. But it's necessary and we need to think about it and adapt our economies.

Schröder's "deep reforms" were largely the answer to the socioeconomic pains of reunification. Neither the Scandinavian countries nor France were faced with similar challenges. Bringing a backwards ex-communist economy to the level of the western part, Germany resembled nation-spanning "communicating vessels", whereby the 'liquid economy' was balanced out to the same level in both territorial entities regardless of the shape, history and volume of the territories.

Yes, I do.
.
In Germany healthcare access is universal - fact. Nobody can be denied necessary treatment (or drugs) because of ability (or otherwise) to pay. Everybody is automatically covered by state insurance if they do not have private insurance. The only points of charge for individuals (the 10 euro fee per original access to primary care, and charges for drugs) are all billed on credit (with no interest charges applied) - nobody can be denied access based on their ability to pay (repayment is waived where individuals have modest incomes).
.
On GINI coefficients, check it out yourself:https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/21...
France is far more unequal than Germany. France has greater poverty than Germany. (The statistics say that - but you will see it with your own eyes if you have travelled in both countries. France has real ghettos on a scale that don't exist even in East Germany.)
.
France does many things far better than Germany (e.g. competent & pragmatic management of nuclear power, promotion of higher fertility & support for child rearing, etc). But Germany does many things better than France (lower tax rates, lower salaries for public employees, a more sustainable pension system, public spending which is targeted better at reducing inequality, higher investment in education, higher investment in R&D, higher investment in infrastructure, etc).
.
On the whole however, I definitely agree with Waterloo34's remark that Nordic countries (and I would include the Netherlands in that group as following roughly the same model) present a yet better example as to where France needs to reform.

Did you mean: A growing number of Germans who work SELF-EMPLOYED can't afford a private insurance, putting off the treatment . . .
.
People who work in employment must have compulsory health insurance; that's law. This was at least the case when I did business in Germany.

I wouldn't advocate "high" birth rates, but I would advocate birth rates near replacement level (say, in the 1.9-2.0 range, so far as governments have any acceptable influence in targeting this).
.
With Germany's present fertility rate (1.39 per woman), the number of live births in the whole of Germany will be less than in the Netherlands today within just 4 generations, and will be less than Switzerland, Austria or even Ireland today within 7 generations.
.
The present pace of population collapse in Germany is not merely hard economically - it will also be devastating socially, scientifically, etc. For the good of humanity, Germans really need to have more kids - something approaching replacement level. A slow & steady decline is just fine; outright collapse is unbearable (and this deserves far more political attention than it's getting). Likewise for most of Southern & Eastern Europe.

As long as Germany's family courtrooms, social-work agencies and youth offices are 'powered' by feminist ideologies, with a divorce rate of almost 50% intelligent young men will avoid like the plague having children of their own . . . .
.
Learn from the USA, where most states meanwhile passed family laws giving custody to the parent who guarantees children's visiting rights with the other parent at best.

I think that poverty is more heavily concentrated in certain areas in France (especially in the suburbs of France's big and middle-size cities and on the coutryside) and hence more visible. Besides, racism is more institutionalized in France and ordinary racism runs deep (more so than in Germany).

But France does fare better than Germany in terms of overall poverty rate (13.5 in France, 15.6 in Germany), though not in terms of child poverty (slightly higher in France than in Germany).

" Bringing a backwards ex-communist economy to the level of the western part"

which was still viable as Eastern Germany was the "model" for the Soviet Union, but that was ruined with its annexion by Western Germany, who de facto removed the eastern DM, for the western DM, hence making the enterprises obsolete and not enough productive there. Had Kohl let the Eastern Germany still using their currency, and let her progressively adapting, this problem wouldn't have been so accurate. Still today, Eastern Germany hasn't recover its pre-annexion economical level.

Regardless of that, the EU cohesion and structural funds were generously poured in Eastern Germany, also higher interests for the EMU countries were ment to help too.

"I definitely agree with Waterloo34's remark that Nordic countries (and I would include the Netherlands in that group as following roughly the same model) present a yet better example as to where France needs to reform."

Except that the Nordic countries have not many people to feed, (almost all less than 10 millions inhabitants), like for Zwitzerland, it's easier to organise reforms and to govern.

Besides of that any system that succeed in a country, it's because it's adapted to its cultural background, I doubt that a nordic system would succeed in France, we are different people of very different cultures, some nordic some eastern, some mediterranean, some atlantic, some celtic...

We don't need a foreign model ours was all right until the euro !

If we have to make reforms they must be made from the insiders, at their own speed and needs !

Is this why so many Polish workers commute every day to jobs in East Germany? LOL!
.
Why is it not the other way around? Is it because Poland is using its own currency, and could progressively adapt its economy, as you suggest for East Germany?

You haven't even read Sarrazin's book. This is why you talk nonsense. He was suggesting a selective immigration policy a la America or Canada, where immigrants with good language skills and higher education are given preference. He rightly stated that it was a mistake to let those come who were the most uneducated in their home countries as well. In the case of Germany, this group came mainly from Turkey as guest workers, who happen to be Muslims. Iranian immigrants are doing well in Germany, above the county's average. They are also Muslims.

you perfectly know that polish workers in Germany, even if they get higher wages than in Poland, are paid less than a normal german worker in Germany (at lest before the generalisation of low wages, but then again, they'd better stay in Poland), anyways they make work that no German makes (wether because the German don't want such jobs, wether there's a lack of manpower in certain profession), plumbers? they work in farms... mines...

Poland, BTW has one of the biggest Growth ratings of the western world

True, but my point was that for the people in Germany's East unification with one currency was better than struggling on their own. They don't work in Poland because even Hartz IV pays more than they could earn in Poland. Skilled professionals are in high demand in Germany and therefore well paid. It's unskilled jobs that don't pay good. But this is the case in all developed countries sooner or later. The key to that problem is education and qualification. Both are provided for free in Germany, also for Hartz IV recipients.

No he didn't mean what you wrote. He has many friends among educated Turks in Germany. He advocates compulsory kindergartens for immigrants to acquire the necessary language skills. And he is a Social Democrat, far off being a racist. He might be a culturist, an advocate of culture, but he's no racist.

How can a Frenchman ever understand a German book.
I agree with you Sarrazin did not even make a racist remark in his book.
But for the French anything is good if they only can create an anti-German rant of it:)
So the opinion of a Frenchman is always useless as Mrs.Merkel and the German gvt had to learn.

Aren't gender-inequality and the truncated school-day rather inextricably linked? Plus, I wonder what the hidden and explicit costs involved in the widespread recourse to creches, child-care ['nounous']and other forms of upbringing for the under-sixes.

To be provocative (for once!) is the French inclination to normative, conformist behaviours a consequence of this early handing over to others' keeping? This last could be called confident sociability, I suppose... before Hildegaarde gets too cross.

your number for German birth rate is not correct: As a Max Planck Institut has shown in a interesting academic dispute three years ago the number of kids per woman is underestimated by the federal agencies due to fawlty methodology which gives much too low value for older mothers.

The good news is we have around 1.6 kid per woman, and the difference occurs in families with highly educated women who have their first and second kid at higher age (> 30 years), i.e. the additional kids are in a "pool position" for good education and from a economic point of view valuable assets. :-)

The second aspect is that Germany has a positive net immigrationsince 2010, +400000 in 2012, and until 2020 we will see at least an increase of 5 million people, many will stay, so the Netherland scenario is highly unlikely. :-)

Perhaps German fertility is 1.6 (your account certainly seems plausible - World Bank numbers may be wrong). 1.6 is still far too low (1.9 to 2.05 probably is probably the optimal range for sustainability).
.
Net immigration from Eastern Europe may support 5 years or more of population growth in Germany. But remember:
- fertility rates in Eastern Europe are also very low (Poland: 1.38, Czech Republic: 1.49, Russia: 1.54, Ukraine: 1.44, Serbia: 1.4, Belarus: 1.44, Romania: 1.38, Hungary: 1.25, Slovakia: 1.4, Croatia: 1.46). Even Turkey's fertility rate is now at roughly replacement level (2.09 and falling). Given these numbers, any immigration to Germany means even more rapid population collapse in the source countries, and is inherently unsustainable.
.
- with economic convergence and with deeper integration of European markets, Germans are likely to emigrate in large numbers too - to sunny Canary Islands/ Cyprus/ Balkans, to cheaper cities in Eastern Europe, to job opportunities in Scandinavia, Switzerland or Russia. Even if immigration remains high for a decade, emigration from Germany is likely to surge (a euro-pension can buy far greater luxury & quality in Bulgaria than in Bavaria).
.
Certainly, a high quality of education for the next generation is important. It is also important to actually have a next generation, if we want to see continued scientific, technical, social, environmental and economic progress. Southern, Central & Eastern Europe (Germany, Austria & Switzerland included) is failing.

it is more and more obvious that until western leaders start to base their economic programs on greater equality and a smaller ecological footprint, which means shrinking the overall size of the economy, they are going to continue to struggle. In the face of ecological collapse and climate change it is the expectation of growth that is making all the plans unworkable. Use less, share more.

The average carbon footprint of a frenchman is already pretty low thanks to nuclear power.
You advise Montebourg's décroissance but that would automatically mean a lower standard of living. You worry about the future generation, with your plan there won't be one

There is no evidence that above a certain level (about $10,000 per capita per year) that increased consumption increases happiness or longevity. We could dramatically shrink economies in the west without harming our communities.

it is more and more obvious that until western leaders start to base their economic programs on greater equality and a smaller ecological footprint, which means shrinking the overall size of the economy, they are going to continue to struggle. In the face of ecological collapse and climate change it is the expectation of growth that is making all the plans unworkable. Use less, share more.

it is more and more obvious that until western leaders start to base their economic programs on greater equality and a smaller ecological footprint, which means shrinking the overall size of the economy, they are going to continue to struggle. In the face of ecological collapse and climate change it is the expectation of growth that is making all the plans unworkable. Use less, share more.

According to BEE, a renewable energy think tank, renewable energy could fill the void left behind if the German government really decides to make its current shutdown of seven plants in the country permanent (of which I wouldn't be so sure about).
.
"Renewables could be ready to provide 47 percent of German power supply up to 2020. This way they would not just compensate for the nuclear withdrawal (meant to happen by 2021 at the latest), but in addition offer affordable and sustainable power," a BEE spokesperson told Reuters.

The problem with renewable and clean energies is their intermittence.
I do not disagree that on average, renewables could provide nearly 50% of Germany power supply but it is a grave error to deal with averages. Power supply and power consumption must be matched at all times (or nearly enough) as a consequence you need extra capacity e.g gas/coal burning power plants to produce electricity when renewable sources don't.
What renewables need is a way to store massive amounts of electricity with excellent efficiency. Yet we are nowhere close to find it (and it's not a question of cost, we haven't come up with a viable and expensive solution yet).
Until then, thanks to their beloved Green Party, Germany's carbon footprint will continue to increase.

In the opinion of a majority nuclear is no option. This conviction runs through all parties in Germany. It's not only the Greens anymore. And I agree. For a densely populated country, nuclear would be only an option when it is totally desperate; but this is not the situation in Germany. In 2007, up to six nuclear reactors were out of action at one stage (due to summer heat), but Germany still had one of its biggest power export surpluses that year.

The only way Franc will change is when they stop all those heavy subsidies to Industry.
And when they stop the Unions dictating the whole agenda.
Whatever you guys do - you seem to think that competing against the Asians should be off the radar.

In fact - come to think of it - being anti competitive was the main reason why France joined the EU

and what do you gain if France stop to subsidy her industry,
..
Ah !
if France stops subsidizing her industries - especially her cars and steel, then the budget deficit will not be so bad. Then - maybe you will get a better credit rating and perhaps they will not charge you such a high interest rate.

Imagine all those Rich fat cats sitting in the Renault offices - They would never understand how to compete against Mercedes.
And now if you stop the subsidies they will go down very fast.
Of course you could do what the German Government does - NO subsidies.
Or what the UK government eventually did - stop all the subsidies.

Otherwise the Government might as well employ all those people - and damn the budget

Ah, you're mixing dish towels with napkins
Mercedes and Renault aren't playing in the same yard, at least for the category of custumers and for the prices. Mercedes also gets some disguised subsidies, (low cost labor force paid by the state, companies are forced to provide a german car to their frames... )
in fact the Renault fat cat delocated all the low costs cars to low cost labour force countries, Romania, Turkey, Spain, Marroco, and now Algeria too ! So no subsidies there, or you might find that these delocations are subsidies, then 90% of the "german made" is done outside Germany's borders, especially in eastern Republics.
UK has no more enterprises that are owned by the British